Under your interface, apply a policer:
interfaces {
fe-1/0/1 {
unit 148 {
description "Some Customer";
bandwidth 10m;
vlan-id 148;
family inet {
policer {
input 10meg;
output 10meg;
I'm currently using interface, policer, and filter config like this to
rate-limit ethernet interfaces to paid bandwidth on an M10i:
interfaces {
fe-1/0/1 {
unit 148 {
description "Some Customer";
bandwidth 10m;
vlan-id 148;
family inet {
On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 02:16:32AM +0800, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
> We have two networks, they all run Jumbo frames across the
> board. One does 9,192 bytes, the other does 9,000 bytes.
>
> In all cases, we decided to set the 'tcp-mss' in Junos
> systems to 1,500 bytes, which is the lowest MTU we h
Serge Vautour writes:
>I'm not a programmer but can usually find a way to code what I want. I've
>written a few basic commit & event scripts and they work. This one is getting
>very long - lots of for-each loops inside loops.
The issue isn't looping, but infinite recursion. If a template
calls
> From: Mark Tinka
> Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 18:02:52 +0800
> Sender: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
>
> On Wednesday, June 01, 2011 05:19:24 PM Muhammad Adnan
> Mohsin wrote:
>
> > Hi Alexander & rest of the experts,
> > The MTU size in the whole network is set to 4492. But on
> > this rout
Hello,
I'm getting this error when I run a commit script I've written:
re0:
error: runtime error: file /var/db/scripts/import/junos.xsl line 100 element
param
error: xsltApplyXSLTTemplate: A potential infinite template recursion was
detected.
You can adjust xsltMaxDepth (--maxdepth) in order t
Anyone have any further details on this bulletin that just came out today?
We have MX's running 10.0R3.10 that are quite stable for our usage - I
really don't want to upgrade them unless there is a good reason (which the
bulletin would say there is).. Uptime on some of them is just over 1 year
On Thursday, June 02, 2011 01:58:21 AM Jeff Wheeler wrote:
> I believe that vendors have made a mistake by changing
> this default, but it is inconsequential to most networks
> because they have a consistent MTU across their whole
> backbone. If you don't, you should base the iBGP TCP
> MSS on th
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
> It's probably time to break out the 'tcp-mss' option for
> BGP.
This is exactly the reason that BGP implementations used to default to
MSS 536 for all iBGP sessions. The change in default behavior has
happened over the past five years or so, a
On Wednesday, June 01, 2011 10:06:22 PM Muhammad Adnan
Mohsin wrote:
> Hi,
> I was still seeing ping drops without using the size. I
> adjust the MTU size back to 1950 on this router. I don't
> see ping drops now but the BGP behavior is now the same
> again. It's stable with one of the RRs and st
Do you have MPCs in the MX240? I have seen similiar issues,
which had been caused by software bugs - if so, try restarting
the linecards and do the software update. Some small packets
go through but bigger ones are sometimes dropped...
Regards,
Tom
Am 01.06.2011 15:21, schrieb Alexander Frolkin:
Hi,
I was still seeing ping drops without using the size. I adjust the MTU
size back to 1950 on this router. I don't see ping drops now but the
BGP behavior is now the same again. It's stable with one of the RRs
and still flapping with the other RR.
regards,
Adnan.
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 4:21 PM,
Hi,
> I have found that the maximum PING size is 1870. If the value is 1871
> I get a message "ping: sendto: Message too long". But at size 1870...I
> am getting ping drops. The success rate is around 60%. Is it normal to
> get ping drops? Anyways I have set the MTU to 1870+28=1898 and still
> obs
Dear Alexander,
I have found that the maximum PING size is 1870. If the value is 1871
I get a message "ping: sendto: Message too long". But at size 1870...I
am getting ping drops. The success rate is around 60%. Is it normal to
get ping drops? Anyways I have set the MTU to 1870+28=1898 and still
ob
Hi,
> I have resolved the session hanging issue by lowering the MTU value to
> 1920 on this router. But the BGP session is now flapping a lot and
> it's flapping with both the RRs now. Should I try the tcp-mss option
> or should i further play with the MTU value. I lowered the value to
> 1800 but
I have resolved the session hanging issue by lowering the MTU value to
1920 on this router. But the BGP session is now flapping a lot and
it's flapping with both the RRs now. Should I try the tcp-mss option
or should i further play with the MTU value. I lowered the value to
1800 but the flapping wa
On Wednesday, June 01, 2011 05:19:24 PM Muhammad Adnan
Mohsin wrote:
> Hi Alexander & rest of the experts,
> The MTU size in the whole network is set to 4492. But on
> this router and the router connected to it, the MTU size
> recommended by the transmission team is 2000. So it's
> configured 200
Hi
I have m120 (9.6R2.11) with 1x10GE card, compact. I can say that is routing on
stick, few vlans are "internal" and few is from isp. Port in m120 is connected
to extreme switch summit x450a. On switch i have only vlans, nothing more. I
have strange problem with performance on m120 - I see p
Hi Alexander & rest of the experts,
The MTU size in the whole network is set to 4492. But on this router
and the router connected to it, the MTU size recommended by the
transmission team is 2000. So it's configured 2000 on this router and
1950 is configured on the router that connects to it. Can so
19 matches
Mail list logo
